SkillsBench: Benchmarking How Well Agent Skills Work Across Diverse Tasks
Open accessAbstract
Agent Skills are structured packages of procedural knowledge that augment large language model (LLM) agents at inference time. Despite rapid adoption, there is no standard way to measure whether they actually help. We present SkillsBench, a benchmark whose current inventory contains 87 tasks across 8 domains paired with curated Skills and deterministic verifiers. Our latest aggregate evaluation runs the 87-task benchmark under matched no-Skills and curated-Skills conditions for 18 model-harness configurations. Curated Skills raise the average pass rate from 33.9% to 50.5% (+16.6 percentage points; 25.5% normalized gain), with configuration-level gains ranging from +4.1 to +25.7 pp. Focused Skills with at most three modules outperform larger or exhaustive bundles, and smaller models with Skills can match larger models without them. SkillsBench establishes paired evaluation as the foundation for rigorous measurement of Skill efficacy on agentic, expertise-heavy work.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
SKILLSBENCH is a benchmark of 84 evaluated tasks across 11 domains, each run under no-Skills, curated-Skills, and self-generated-Skills conditions with deterministic verifiers, to measure whether Agent Skills actually improve LLM agent performance. Curated Skills raise average pass rate by +16.2 percentage points, but self-generated Skills provide no benefit (-1.3pp on average), showing models cannot reliably author the procedural knowledge they benefit from consuming.
Key findings
- Curated Skills improve pass rate by +16.2pp on average across 7 model-harness configurations (range +13.6pp to +23.3pp); the largest absolute gain is Claude Code + Opus 4.5 (+23.3pp), and the highest with-Skills pass rate is Gemini CLI + Gemini 3 Flash (48.7%).
- Domain effects vary widely: +51.9pp for Healthcare and +41.9pp for Manufacturing down to +6.0pp for Mathematics and +4.5pp for Software Engineering; 16 of 84 tasks show negative deltas (e.g., taxonomy-tree-merge -39.3pp, energy-ac-optimal-power-flow -14.3pp).
- Self-generated Skills yield -1.3pp on average versus no-Skills; only Opus 4.6 shows a modest gain (+1.4pp), while Codex + GPT-5.2 degrades (-5.6pp).
- Skill design matters: 2-3 Skills give the largest gain (+18.6pp) versus +5.9pp for 4+ Skills; detailed (+18.8pp) and compact (+17.1pp) Skills outperform comprehensive ones (-2.9pp). Claude Haiku 4.5 with Skills (27.7%) exceeds Claude Opus 4.5 without Skills (22.0%).
Methods
- Benchmark construction: 322 candidate tasks from 105 contributors, filtered through automated checks (structural validation, oracle must pass 100%, GPTZero AI-detection, leakage audit) and human review, yielding 86 tasks (84 evaluated; mhc-layer-impl excluded for GPU requirement, fix-visual-stability for verifier timeouts) across 11 domains, stratified as Core (17, <60 min), Extended (43, 1-4 hrs), Extreme (26, >4 hrs).
- Evaluation: 7 agent-model configurations (Claude Code with Opus 4.5/4.6, Sonnet 4.5, Haiku 4.5; Gemini CLI with Gemini 3 Pro/Flash; Codex CLI with GPT-5.2) at temperature 0, run under three conditions (no Skills, curated Skills, self-generated Skills; the last only on 5 of 7 configurations), producing 7,308 valid trajectories.
- Analysis: deterministic pytest verifiers produce binary pass/fail; primary metric is pass rate averaged over 5 trials per task with a fixed denominator of 84, plus Hake's normalized gain; 95% bootstrap CIs with 1,000 resamples; failure taxonomy adapted from the Terminal Agent Taxonomy using programmatic analysis of CTRF reports.
Limitations
- Stated: coverage is limited to terminal-based, containerized tasks, so results may not transfer to GUI agents, multi-agent coordination, or very long-horizon workflows, and only a limited set of models/harnesses was evaluated.
- Stated: Skills injection increases context length, so gains could partly reflect "more context" rather than procedural structure; stronger length-matched baselines (random/irrelevant text, retrieval-only documentation) are needed.
- Stated: containerization provides state isolation but not perfect determinism or immunity to training-set leakage; the paper also notes (evident in the text) that the benchmark uses top-quartile Skills (mean 10.1/12) versus an ecosystem mean of 6.2/12, representing an optimistic scenario, and that a Gemini CLI timeout-enforcement bug required retroactive reward overrides.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 10 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
Self-generated Skills provide no benefit on average.
“Self-generated Skills provide no benefit on average”
- Also stated in: § 4.1.1. MAIN RESULTS · plain
“Self-generated Skills provide negligible or negative benefit”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 4.1.1. MAIN RESULTS · plain
- Findingown data
Claude Haiku 4.5 with Skills (27.7%) outperforms Haiku without Skills (11.0%) by +16.7pp.
“Claude Haiku 4.5 with Skills (27.7%) outperforms Haiku without Skills (11.0%) by +16.7pp.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The effect of curated Skills varies widely by domain, from +4.5pp for Software Engineering to +51.9pp for Healthcare.
“effects vary widely by domain (+4.5pp for Software Engineering to +51.9pp for Healthcare)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Self-generated Skills achieve -1.3pp on average compared to no-Skills baseline.
“models achieve -1.3pp on average compared to the no-Skills baseline.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingnone given
Skills benefit varies widely across domains.
“Finding 4: Skills benefit varies widely across domains.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- Findingown data
The pipeline aggregated 47,150 unique Skills after deduplication.
“yielding 47,150 unique Skills after deduplication.”
- Also stated in: § A.1. Data Collection · plain
“After deduplication (based on SKILL.mdcontent hash), we retained 47,150 unique Skills from 6,323 repositories.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Also stated in: § A.1. Data Collection · plain
- Findingown data
The final benchmark contains 84 tasks spanning 11 domains.
“producing 84 tasks spanning 11 domains.”
- Also stated in: § Automated Validation. · plain
“SKILLSBENCH comprises 84 tasks across 11 domains”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Also stated in: § Automated Validation. · plain
- Findingown data
Smaller models with Skills can match larger models without them.
“smaller models with Skills can match larger models without them”
- Also stated in: § 4.2.3. MODEL SCALE EFFECTS · plain
“Finding 7: Smaller model + Skills can exceed larger model without Skills.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 4.2.3. MODEL SCALE EFFECTS · plain
- Findingown data
SKILLSBENCH comprises 84 tasks across 11 domains.
“SKILLSBENCH comprises 84 tasks across 11 domains, with category distribution shown in Figure 3.”
- Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
“We curate 84 tasks across 11 domains, each executed under three conditions-no Skills, curated Skills, and self-generated Skills-with deterministic verifiers and full trajectory logging.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 1. Introduction · plain
- Findingown data
16 of 84 tasks show negative deltas with curated Skills.
“16 of 84 tasks show negative deltas”
- Also stated in: § Top Skills beneficiaries. · plain
“16 of 84 tasks show negative Skills deltas”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Top Skills beneficiaries. · plain
- Findingown data
Curated Skills provide +12.66pp average improvement in the pipeline figure.
“with curated Skills providing +12.66pp average improvement.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
After deduplication, 47,150 unique Skills from 6,323 repositories were retained.
“After deduplication (based on SKILL.mdcontent hash), we retained 47,150 unique Skills from 6,323 repositories.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Claude Opus 4.5 without Skills achieves 22.0%.
“Meanwhile, Claude Opus 4.5 without Skills achieves 22.0%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Focused Skills with 2-3 modules outperform comprehensive documentation.
“Focused Skills with 2-3 modules outperform comprehensive documentation”
- Also stated in: § 4.2. Experiment 2: Skills Design Factors · plain
“Finding 5: 2-3 Skills are optimal; more Skills show diminishing returns.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 4.2. Experiment 2: Skills Design Factors · plain
- Findingown data
Curated Skills raise average pass rate by 16.2 percentage points.
“Curated Skills raise average pass rate by 16.2 percentage points (pp)”
- Also stated in: § 4.1.1. MAIN RESULTS · plain
“Skills improve performance by +16.2pp on average across 7 model-harness configurations”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 4.1.1. MAIN RESULTS · plain
- Findingown data
Without Skills, all 7 models scored 0% on sales-pivot-analysis, which requires creating Excel pivot tables programmatically from population and income data.
“Without Skills, all 7 models scored 0% on this task, which requires creating Excel pivot tables programmatically from population and income data.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
taxonomy-tree-merge, video-filler-word-remover, and gravitational-wave-detection consistently timeout across all models (5/5 trials) in the with-Skills condition.
“Tasks such as taxonomy-tree-merge, video-filler-word-remover, and gravitational-wave-detection consistently timeout across all models (5/5 trials), suggesting these tasks exceed the computational budget regardless of model capability.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Claude Code models (from JSONL data where available) show >99% cache rates.
“Claude Code models (from JSONL data where available) show >99% cache rates”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Incomplete Solution failures drop from 243 to 156 (35.8% reduction).
“Incomplete Solution failures drop from 243 to 156 (35.8% reduction)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Gemini CLI + Gemini 3 Flash achieves the highest absolute pass rate (48.7%) with Skills, despite a smaller normalized gain (25.3%).
“• Gemini CLI + Gemini 3 Flash achieves the highest absolute pass rate (48.7%) with Skills, despite a smaller normalized gain (25.3%).”
- Also stated in: § Skills transforming outcomes: sales-pivot-analysis. · plain
“Gemini CLI with Gemini 3 Flash, achieving 48.7% pass rate”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Skills transforming outcomes: sales-pivot-analysis. · plain
- Findingown data
Skills shift the cost-performance frontier upward across all models.
“The Pareto frontier analysis in Figure 4 (main paper) shows that Skills shift the cost-performance frontier upward across all models.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Mean quality score across the ecosystem is 6.2/12 (SD=2.8).
“Mean quality score across the ecosystem is 6.2/12 (SD=2.8),indicating substantial room for improvement in Skill authoring practices.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Gemini 3 Flash consumes 2.3× more input tokens per task than Gemini 3 Pro (1.08M vs. 0.47M with Skills).
“Gemini 3 Flash consumes 2.3× more input tokens per task than Gemini 3 Pro (1.08M vs. 0.47M with Skills)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
16 of 84 evaluated tasks (19%) have a 0% pass rate across all models and conditions.
“16 of 84 evaluated tasks (19%) have a 0% pass rate across all models and conditions”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Detailed and compact Skills outperform comprehensive ones.
“Detailed and compact Skills outperform comprehensive ones.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The absolute number of Quality Below Threshold failures drops from 1,184 (No Skills) to 819 (With Skills), a 30.8% reduction.
“The absolute number of Quality Below Threshold failures drops from 1,184 (No Skills) to 819 (With Skills), a 30.8% reduction.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
With Skills, agents successfully formulated and solved the manufacturing-fjsp-optimization problem (68.6% pass rate, +68.6pp).
“With Skills, agents successfully formulated and solved the optimization problem (68.6% pass rate, +68.6pp).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Of 84 tasks, 39 (46%) have at least one timeout in the with-Skills condition.
“Of 84 tasks, 39 (46%) have at least one timeout in the with-Skills condition.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The dominant failure mode is Quality Below Threshold (49.8%).
“The dominant failure mode is Quality Below Threshold (49.8%), indicating that agents typically understand the task structure and produce output, but their solutions are insufficiently accurate.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
2-3 Skills shows optimal benefit.
“2-3 Skills shows optimal benefit.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Confidence intervals are tighter for no-Skills conditions than for with-Skills conditions.
“Confidence intervals are tighter for no-Skills conditions (lower variance) than for with-Skills conditions, suggesting Skills introduce additional sources of variance.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The verifier itself exceeds its timeout budget (300-450s), independent of agent behavior.
“The verifier itself exceeds its timeout budget (300-450s), independent of agent behavior.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Without Skills, agents produced naive schedules ignoring maintenance constraints (0% pass rate) on manufacturing-fjsp-optimization.
“Without Skills, agents produced naive schedules ignoring maintenance constraints (0% pass rate).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Markdown files dominate the file extension distribution of Skills.
“Markdown files dominate, indicating Skills prioritize natural-language instructions over executable implementations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
In practice, cached pricing reduces actual costs by 50-90% below the standard rates shown in Table 13.
“In practice, cached pricing reduces actual costs by 50-90% below the standard rates shown in Table 13.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Verification failures are uniformly dominant across all models (48-53%).
“Verification failures are uniformly dominant across all models (48-53%)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Skills increase input token usage by 6-13% for Codex and Gemini (additional context from Skill documents).
“Skills increase input token usage by 6-13% for Codex and Gemini (additional context from Skill documents)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Gemini 3 Pro shows a slight decrease in token usage with Skills (-6%).
“Gemini 3 Pro shows a slight decrease in token usage with Skills (-6%)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Tasks along the diagonal transition from solvable to unsolvable as model capability decreases.
“Tasks along the diagonal transition from solvable to unsolvable as model capability decreases.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Curated Skills improve performance by +16.2pp on average (range +13.6 to +23.3pp), corresponding to a normalized gain of 21.5%.
“• Curated Skills improve performance by +16.2pp on average (range: +13.6 to +23.3pp), corresponding to a normalized gain of 21.5%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingreasoning
At standard API pricing, Flash's 4× lower per-token cost more than offsets higher token volume, making Flash 47% cheaper per task ($0.57 vs. $1.06).
“At standard API pricing, Flash's 4× lower per-token cost more than offsets higher token volume, making Flash 47% cheaper per task ($0.57vs. $1.06).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Failure mode distribution was classified across 5,171 agent failures (excluding infrastructure errors).
“Failure mode distribution across 5,171 agent failures (excluding infrastructure errors).Classification is based on programmatic analysis of CTRF test reports and verifier logs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The average improvement for the top-10 tasks is +70.4 percentage points.
“The average improvement for these top-10 tasks is +70.4 percentage points.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisenone given
No benchmark systematically evaluates how and when Skills improve agent performance, what content drives gains, or what design principles distinguish effective Skills from ineffective ones.
“Yet despite this proliferation, no benchmark systematically evaluates how and when Skills improve agent performance, what content drives gains, or what design principles distinguish effective Skills from ineffective ones.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
Effective Skills require human-curated domain expertise that models cannot reliably self-generate.
“demonstrating that effective Skills require human-curated domain expertise that models cannot reliably self-generate.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisereasoning
SKILLSBENCH is the first benchmark that treats Skills as first-class evaluation artifacts.
“we introduce SKILLSBENCH, the first benchmark that treats Skills as first-class evaluation artifacts”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Skills are most helpful when success depends on concrete procedures and verifier-facing details, rather than broad conceptual knowledge.
“Skills are most helpful when success depends on concrete procedures and verifier-facing details (steps, constraints, sanity checks), rather than broad conceptual knowledge.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductcitation
Deterministic test scripts ensure reproducible pass/fail determination without LLM-as-a-judge variance.
“This ensures reproducible pass/fail determination without LLM-as-a-judge variance”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Skills can partially compensate for model capacity limitations on procedural tasks.
“This demonstrates that Skills can partially compensate for model capacity limitations on procedural tasks.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
These top beneficiary tasks involve specialized procedural knowledge rarely covered in pretraining.
“These tasks involve specialized procedural knowledge rarely covered in pretraining.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
Skills efficacy depends strongly on the specific agent-model combination.
“This variability suggests that Skills efficacy depends strongly on the specific agent-model combination, contradicting the assumption of uniform Skills benefits.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Models cannot reliably author the procedural knowledge they benefit from consuming.
“showing that models cannot reliably author the procedural knowledge they benefit from consuming”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductreasoning
The benchmark uses deterministic verifiers.
“with deterministic verifiers and full trajectory logging”
- Also stated in: § 2.2. Task Specification · plain
“Deterministic test scripts with programmatic assertions, including numeric tolerances where appropriate.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 2.2. Task Specification · plain
- Interpretationnone given
Structured interfaces can introduce long-trajectory failure modes (e.g., format drift), reducing the influence of early-injected Skills.
“Structured interfaces can also introduce long-trajectory failure modes (e.g., format drift), reducing the influence of early-injected Skills.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationnone given
Modular Skills appear to compose better on multi-part tasks.
“Modular Skills also appear to compose better on multi-part tasks”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Study design and conductreasoning
Benchmark Skills were selected from the top quality quartile (score ≥ 9/12) to isolate the effect of procedural knowledge from Skill quality variance.
“We selected benchmark Skills from the top quality quartile (score ≥ 9/12) to isolate the effect of procedural knowledge from Skill quality variance”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Haiku 4.5's lower capability produces more fundamental errors.
“consistent with its lower capability producing more fundamental errors.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
Skills help agents identify and complete all required deliverables rather than leaving components unfinished.
“indicating that Skills help agents identify and complete all required deliverables rather than leaving components unfinished.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Quality-not structure-is the primary bottleneck.
“confirming that quality-not structure-is the primary bottleneck.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
Opus 4.6 pursues more ambitious strategies that risk running out of time.
“suggesting it pursues more ambitious strategies that risk running out of time.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Skills provide domain-specific guidance that helps agents produce higher-quality outputs on tasks they already structurally understand.
“This accounts for the majority of the improvement: Skills provide domain-specific guidance that helps agents produce higher-quality outputs on tasks they already structurally understand.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Skills introduce additional sources of variance.
“Confidence intervals are tighter for no-Skills conditions (lower variance) than for with-Skills conditions, suggesting Skills introduce additional sources of variance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The smaller model substitutes iterative exploration for reasoning depth.
“a compensatory strategy where the smaller model substitutes iterative exploration for reasoning depth.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
5 runs provides sufficient precision for the main findings.
“This validates that 5 runs provides sufficient precision for our main findings.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The 10 tasks with the largest Skills improvement share a common pattern: they require domain-specific procedural knowledge (e.g., Excel pivot table APIs, financial modeling formulas, scientific data processing pipelines) that is well-suited to being encoded in Skill documents.
“Table 18 lists the 10 tasks where Skills produced the largest improvement in pass rate.These tasks share a common pattern: they require domain-specific procedural knowledge (e.g., Excel pivot table APIs, financial modeling formulas, scientific data processing pipelines) that is well-suited to being encoded in Skill documents.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- May combine two claims. 85
- The quote only partly states this claim. 6
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 67
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataSkills span domains: Software Development 38%, Data Analysis 22%, DevOps/Infrastructure 15%, Writing/Documentation 12%, Other 13%.
“Software Development: 38% (git workflows, code review, testing) • Data Analysis: 22% (pandas, SQL, visualization) • DevOps/Infrastructure: 15% (Docker, Kubernetes, CI/CD) • Writing/Documentation: 12% (technical writing, API docs) • Other: 13% (scientific computing, finance, etc.)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataCodex CLI has competitive raw performance (44.7% with Skills) and frequently neglects provided Skills.
“Codex CLI: Competitive raw performance (44.7% with Skills); frequently neglects provided Skills-agents acknowledge Skills content but often implement solutions independently.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataDetailed (+18.8pp) and compact (+17.1pp) Skills provide largest benefit, while comprehensive Skills hurt performance (-2.9pp).
“Detailed (+18.8pp) and compact (+17.1pp)Skills provide the largest benefit, while comprehensive Skills actually hurt performance (-2.9pp).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown data16 of 84 tasks show negative Skills deltas, including taxonomy-tree-merge (-39.3pp), energy-ac-optimal-power-flow (-14.3pp), trend-anomaly-causal-inference (-12.9pp), exoplanet-detection-period (-11.4pp).
“Despite positive domain-level aggregates, 16 of 84 tasks show negative Skills deltas: taxonomy-tree-merge (-39.3pp),energy-ac-optimal-power-flow (-14.3pp),trend-anomaly-causal-inference (-12.9pp),exoplanet-detection-period (-11.4pp).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataClaude Code has highest skills utilization rate; improvements range from +13.9pp (Opus 4.6) to +23.3pp (Opus 4.5), with all Claude models consistently benefiting.
“Claude Code: Highest skills utilization rate; improvements range from +13.9pp (Opus 4.6) to +23.3pp (Opus 4.5), with all Claude models consistently benefiting.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataOnly Opus 4.6 shows a modest improvement (+1.4pp) with self-generated Skills; Codex + GPT-5.2 degrades substantially (-5.6pp), and remaining models are flat or negative.
“Only Opus 4.6 shows a modest improvement (+1.4pp);Codex + GPT-5.2 degrades substantially (-5.6pp), and remaining models are flat or negative.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataGemini CLI has highest raw performance (Gemini 3 Flash achieves 48.7% with Skills); improvements range from +13.6pp to +17.4pp.
“Gemini CLI: Highest raw performance (Gemini 3 Flash achieves 48.7% with Skills); improvements range from +13.6pp to +17.4pp.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataThe ecosystem analysis collected 12,847 Skills from public GitHub repositories, 28,412 from community marketplaces, and 5,891 from corporate partners.
“Public GitHub repositories tagged with”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataTrajectory analysis reveals two failure modes for self-generated Skills: models generate imprecise or incomplete procedures, and for high domain-knowledge tasks models fail to recognize the need for specialized Skills.
“Trajectory analysis reveals two failure modes: (1) models identify that domain-specific knowledge is needed but generate imprecise or incomplete procedures (e.g., listing”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataSkills improve performance by +16.2pp on average across 7 model-harness configurations, with range +13.6pp to +23.3pp.
“Skills improve performance by +16.2pp on average across 7 model-harness configurations, but with high variance across configurations (range: +13.6pp to +23.3pp).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningSome harnesses reliably retrieve and use Skills, while others frequently acknowledge Skills content but proceed without invoking them.
“Some harnesses reliably retrieve and use Skills, while others frequently acknowledge Skills content but proceed without invoking them.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataTasks with 2-3 Skills show largest improvement (+18.6pp), while 4+ Skills provide only +5.9pp benefit.
“Tasks with 2-3 Skills show the largest improvement (+18.6pp), while 4+ Skills provide only +5.9pp benefit.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown data105 contributors submitted 322 candidate tasks.
“105 contributors from both academia and industry submitted 322 candidate tasks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe largest Skills (top 1%) exceed 50 KB and typically include extensive code resources.
“The largest Skills (top 1%) exceed 50 KB and typically include extensive code resources.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataMost Skills (78%) follow the standard structure with SKILL.md plus optional resources.
“Most Skills (78%) follow the standard structure with SKILL.mdplus optional resources.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataSkill sizes follow a log-normal distribution with median 2.3 KB (IQR: 0.8-6.1 KB).
“Skill sizes follow a log-normal distribution with median 2.3 KB (IQR: 0.8-6.1 KB).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataTasks showing largest improvements include mario-coin-counting (+85.7pp, from 2.9% to 88.6%), sales-pivot-analysis (+85.7pp), flood-risk-analysis (+77.1pp), sec-financial-report (+74.3pp).
“Tasks showing largest improvements: mario-coin-counting (+85.7pp,from 2.9% to 88.6%), sales-pivot-analysis (+85.7pp),flood-risk-analysis (+77.1pp),sec-financi al-report (+74.3pp).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataMost Skills contain very few files (median of one, concentrated below five).
“Figure 9 shows that most Skills contain very few files (median of one, concentrated below five).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataCurated Skills improve performance by +16.2pp on average; self-generated Skills provide negligible or negative benefit.
“Curated Skills (beige) improve performance by +16.2pp on average; self-generated Skills (amber) provide negligible or negative benefit.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataSelf-generated Skills yield -1.3pp on average; only Opus 4.6 shows marginal improvement (+1.4pp).
“Self-generated Skills yield -1.3pp on average; only Opus 4.6 shows marginal improvement (+1.4pp).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataThe remaining 4 RuntimeErrors are isolated Docker daemon failures (OCI cgroup timeouts, container name conflicts, image race conditions).
“The remaining 4 errors are isolated Docker daemon failures (OCI cgroup timeouts, container name conflicts, image race conditions).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAll domains show positive aggregate delta, though individual tasks within each domain may show negative effects.
“All domains show positive aggregate delta, though individual tasks within each domain may show negative effects.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningWhile the absolute timeout count decreases from 367 to 328, its share of failures increases from 16.1% to 18.6%.
“While the absolute timeout count decreases from 367 to 328, its share of failures increases from 16.1% to 18.6%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataSkills shift the Pareto frontier upward, with Gemini 3 Flash and Claude Opus dominating the with-Skills frontier.
“Skills shift the Pareto frontier upward, with Gemini 3 Flash and Claude Opus dominating the with-Skills frontier.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe grid reveals a common set of easy tasks (top, uniformly blue) solved by all models, and hard tasks (bottom, uniformly red) unsolved even with Skills.
“The grid reveals a common set of easy tasks (top, uniformly blue) solved by all models, and hard tasks (bottom, uniformly red) unsolved even with Skills.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataClaude Code + Opus 4.5 shows the largest absolute improvement (+23.3pp) and normalized gain (29.9%) among configurations.
“• Claude Code + Opus 4.5 shows the largest absolute improvement (+23.3pp) and normalized gain (29.9%), reflecting Claude Code's native Skills integration.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataRuntimeError occurred in 46 trials, dominated by scheduling-email-assistant (42 of 46), where the Dockerfile creates symlinks for Google authentication credentials that don't exist in the evaluation environment.
“RuntimeError (46 trials).Dominated by a single task: scheduling-email-assistant (42 of 46), where the Dockerfile creates symlinks for Google authentication credentials that don't exist in the evaluation environment.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataGemini CLI's agent initialization exceeds the 360-second setup timeout on certain task environments; this does not affect other harnesses.
“Gemini CLI's agent initialization exceeds the 360-second setup timeout on certain task environments.This does not affect other harnesses.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataOpus 4.6 has the highest timeout rate (29% of its failures) but the fewest Execution failures (10%).
“Opus 4.6 has the highest timeout rate (29% of its failures) but the fewest Execution failures (10%)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAgents consistently loaded the data correctly but failed at pivot table creation; Codex attempted manual DataFrame reshaping instead of using pivot tables.
“Agents consistently loaded the data correctly but failed at pivot table creation-Codex attempted manual DataFrame reshaping instead of using”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataTemporal dynamics of Skill creation over 136 days: daily additions remained modest through late 2025, then surged to a peak of 18,904 in January 2026; the cumulative curve reflects exponential-like growth, reaching 84,192 total Skills.
“Temporal dynamics of Skill creation over 136 days.Daily additions (bars, left axis) remained modest through late 2025, then surged to a peak of 18,904 in January 2026.The cumulative curve (line, right axis) reflects exponential-like growth, reaching 84,192 total Skills.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataCompared to Figure 11, the blue region contracts substantially, confirming that Skills shift many tasks from unsolved to solved.
“Compared to Figure11, the blue region contracts substantially, confirming that Skills shift many tasks from unsolved to solved.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataVerifierTimeoutError occurred in 83 trials: 73 instances on fix-visual-stability (excluded from evaluation) and 10 on react-performance-debugging.
“VerifierTimeoutError (83 trials).73 instances on fix-visual-stability (excluded from evaluation) and 10 on react-performance-debugging.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe majority of cells are blue, confirming broad Skill benefit; a small number of tasks show negative delta for specific models.
“The majority of cells are blue, confirming broad Skill benefit.A small number of tasks show negative delta for specific models.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataMost Skills contain 1-5 files.
“Most Skills contain 1-5 files.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingnone givenSKILLSBENCH consists of tasks spanning 11 domains.
“SKILLSBENCH consists of tasks spanning 11 domains.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningThe Self-Generated condition shows a higher failure rate (80.9%) than No Skills (78.4%) with more Timeout failures (19.9%).
“The Self-Generated condition shows a higher failure rate (80.9%) than No Skills (78.4%) with more Timeout failures (19.9%)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAll models show high cache hit rates: GPT-5.2 at 91-92%, Gemini 3 Pro at 75-76%, and Gemini 3 Flash at 63-67%.
“All models show high cache hit rates: GPT-5.2 at 91-92%, Gemini 3 Pro at 75-76%, and Gemini 3 Flash at 63-67%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataOf 322 candidate submissions from 105 contributors, 86 tasks passed all review stages and were included in the final benchmark (26.7% acceptance rate).
“Of 322 candidate submissions from 105 contributors, 86 tasks passed all review stages and were included in the final benchmark (26.7% acceptance rate).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataThe ecosystem is documentation-heavy: markdown files dominate, followed by scripting and configuration code.
“Figure 10 confirms the ecosystem is documentation-heavy: markdown files dominate, followed by scripting and configuration code.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAgent timeouts represent 17.8% of agent failures, affecting 922 trials across all configurations.
“Agent timeouts (AgentTimeoutError) represent 17.8% of agent failures, affecting 922 trials across all configurations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningAt official API pricing ($0.50 vs. $2.00 per 1M input tokens), Flash's 4× lower per-token cost more than offsets this higher volume, making Flash 44% cheaper per task ($0.55 vs. $0.98).
“At official API pricing ($0.50 vs. $2.00 per 1M input tokens), Flash's 4× lower per-token cost more than offsets this higher volume, making Flash 44% cheaper per task ($0.55 vs. $0.98).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAgent Timeout is the second most common failure mode (17.8%), followed by Incomplete Solution (10.2%) and No Output Produced (7.9%).
“Agent Timeout is the second most common (17.8%), followed by Incomplete Solution (10.2%) and No Output Produced (7.9%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataGemini 3 Flash/Pro have the lowest timeout rates (9-10%) but higher Execution failure rates (23-25%).
“Gemini 3 Flash/Pro have the lowest timeout rates (9-10%) but higher Execution failure rates (23-25%)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataSkills reduce the overall failure rate from 78.4% to 61.1% while shifting the failure composition.
“Skills reduce the overall failure rate from 78.4% to 61.1% while shifting the failure composition.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAgentSetupTimeoutError occurred in 35 trials, exclusively in withskills-gemini-cli, affecting 14 tasks.
“AgentSetupTimeoutError (35 trials).Exclusively in withskills-gemini-cli, affecting 14 tasks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataHaiku 4.5 has the highest Execution failure rate (21%) and highest overall failure rate (85.2% of trials).
“Haiku 4.5 has the highest Execution failure rate (21%) and highest overall failure rate (85.2% of trials)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataToken distribution of SKILL.md files (n=36,338, 99.5th percentile shown): most Skills are lightweight with median ∼1.5k tokens.
“Token distribution of SKILL.mdfiles (n=36,338, 99.5th percentile shown).Most Skills are lightweight with median ∼1.5k tokens.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataOn flood-risk-analysis, without Skills agents attempted ad-hoc statistical approaches and achieved only 2.9% pass rate; with Skills, pass rate rose to 80.0% (+77.1pp), with all models correctly applying the USGS-standard methodology.
“Without Skills, agents attempted ad-hoc statistical approaches-e.g., simple threshold-based detection or incorrect distribution fitting-achieving only 2.9% pass rate.The curated Skill specified the Log-Pearson Type III distribution, the standard USGS methodology for flood frequency analysis, including the exact scipy function calls and parameter interpretation.With Skills, pass rate rose to 80.0%”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The Log-Pearson Type III distribution is the standard USGS methodology for flood frequency analysis.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataWith Skills providing step-by-step guidance for the openpyxl pivot table workflow, 6 of 7 models achieved ≥80% pass rate; average improvement was +85.7pp.
“With Skills providing step-by-step guidance for the openpyxl pivot table workflow, 6 of 7 models achieved ≥80% pass rate.Average improvement: +85.7pp.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataThere were 7,308 valid trajectories across 7 configurations and 3 conditions (no Skills, with Skills, self-generated Skills).
“Total: 7,308 valid trajectories across 7 configurations and 3 conditions (no Skills, with Skills, self-generated Skills).Self-generated condition evaluated on Claude Code and Codex configurations only.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Findingown dataMean token usage per trial by model and Skills condition was measured, with Codex and Gemini data from result.json and Claude Code data from session JSONL (input tokens only, output tokens unreliable).
“Mean token usage per trial by model and Skills condition (thousands of tokens).Codex and Gemini data from result.json;ClaudeCode data from session JSONL (input tokens only, output tokens unreliable).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataEstimated mean cost per trial at standard API pricing was computed from mean token usage, omitting Claude Code models due to incomplete output token data.
“Estimated mean cost per trial ($) at standard API pricing.Costs computed from mean token usage.Claude Code models omitted due to incomplete output token data.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataAgent timeout rates by model in the with-Skills condition were measured over 420 trials per model (84 tasks × 5 trials).
“Agent timeout rates by model in the with-Skills condition (420 trials per model, 84 tasks × 5 trials).Effective rate includes retroactive timeout enforcement for Gemini CLI (see §C).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenReviewers run benchmark experiments with and without Skills across multiple agents to confirm each task provides meaningful signal about Skill efficacy.
“Reviewers run benchmark experiments with and without Skills across multiple agents to confirm each task provides meaningful signal about Skill efficacy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningTask instructions must be written by humans, not generated by language models.
“Task instructions must be written by humans, not generated by language models.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenThe Docker container ensures reproducibility through isolated dependencies and clean file system state.
“The container ensures reproducibility through isolated dependencies and clean file system state.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenSeven frontier models are selected: GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.5, Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Claude Haiku 4.5, Gemini 3 Pro, and Gemini 3 Flash.
“We select seven frontier models: GPT-5.2 (OpenAI), Claude Opus 4.5, Claude Opus 4.6, Claude Sonnet 4.5, Claude Haiku 4.5 (Anthropic), Gemini 3 Pro, and Gemini 3 Flash (Google).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSKILLSBENCH focuses on terminal-based, containerized tasks, so results may not directly transfer to GUI agents, multi-agent coordination, or very long-horizon workflows.
“SKILLSBENCH focuses on terminal-based, containerized tasks for reproducible evaluation, so results may not directly transfer to GUI agents, multi-agent coordination, or very long-horizon workflows.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataThe study tests 7 agent-model configurations over 7,308 trajectories.
“We test 7 agent-model configurations over 7,308 trajectories.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).
Study design and conductnone givenSkills must provide procedural guidance for a class of tasks, not solutions to specific instances.
“Skills must provide procedural guidance for a class of tasks, not solutions to specific instances.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSkills injection increases context length, so observed gains could partly reflect more context rather than procedural structure.
“Skills injection increases context length, so observed gains could partly reflect”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Premisenone givenExisting benchmarks measure how well a fixed agent completes tasks; SKILLSBENCH instead measures augmentation efficacy via paired evaluation.
“These benchmarks measure how well a fixed agent completes tasks.SKILLSBENCH instead measures augmentation efficacy via paired evaluation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenThe reference solution validates that each task has at least one correct solution path.
“This oracle validates that each task has at least one correct solution path.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe self-generated Skills condition suggests structure matters-models cannot reliably produce effective procedural guidance despite having the same context budget.
“Our self-generated Skills condition suggests structure matters-models cannot reliably produce effective procedural guidance despite having the same context budget”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenReference solution must achieve 100% test pass rate; tasks with failing oracles are rejected.
“Reference solution must achieve 100% test pass rate.Tasks with failing oracles are rejected.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningSKILLSBENCH evaluates every task under both vanilla (no Skills) and Skills-augmented conditions, enabling direct measurement of Skills efficacy.
“we evaluate every task under both vanilla (no Skills) and Skills-augmented conditions, enabling direct measurement of Skills efficacy.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductcitationPass rate is the primary metric, following Terminal-Bench scoring: average binary reward across 5 trials per task, then average task-level scores using fixed denominator of 84.
“The primary metric is pass rate, following the scoring methodology of Terminal-Bench (Merrill et al., 2026): for each task, we average the binary reward across 5 trials, then average these task-level scores using a fixed denominator of 84 (the number of evaluated tasks).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Merrill et al., 2026
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenThe study evaluates a limited set of models and harnesses; commercial harness behavior and Skills integration can change over time.
“We also evaluate a limited set of models and harnesses; commercial harness behavior and Skills integration can change over time.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataFocused procedural guidance is more effective than exhaustive documentation; agents may struggle to extract relevant information from lengthy Skills content, and overly elaborate Skills can consume context budget without providing actionable guidance.
“This suggests that focused procedural guidance is more effective than exhaustive documentationagents may struggle to extract relevant information from lengthy Skills content, and overly elaborate Skills can consume context budget without providing actionable guidance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenAll models use temperature 0 for deterministic sampling.
“All models use temperature 0 for deterministic sampling.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Study design and conductnone givenTasks are stratified by difficulty measured by estimated completion time by median specialists without AI tools.
“We stratify tasks by difficulty, measured by estimated completion time by individuals whom we consider median specialists for the tasks, without the assistance of AI tools.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningInstructions must not reference which Skills to use, so agents must discover and apply Skills autonomously.
“Instructions must not reference which Skills to use, meaning agents must discover and apply Skills autonomously.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSkills efficacy depends not only on Skills quality but also on how the harness implements Skills.
“Skills efficacy depends not only on Skills quality but also on how the harness implements Skills.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningLarge gains are observed on domains with specialized workflows or brittle formats, and smaller or negative effects when models already have strong priors and the Skill adds overhead or conflicts.
“We observe large gains on domains with specialized workflows or brittle formats, and smaller or negative effects when models already have strong priors and the Skill adds overhead or conflicts.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Premisenone givenDespite many augmentation methods, benchmarks rarely quantify their actual impact.
“Despite many augmentation methods, benchmarks rarely quantify their actual impact.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenEach task's instruction is solvable by a knowledgeable human without access to the paired Skills.
“We write instructions to be solvable by a knowledgeable human without access to the paired Skills”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductcitationThe evaluation uses three commercial agent harnesses: Claude Code, Codex CLI, and Gemini CLI.
“We evaluate three commercial-line agents: Claude Code (Anthropic, 2025b), Codex CLI (OpenAI, 2025), and Gemini CLI (Google, 2025).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Anthropic, 2025b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites OpenAI, 2025
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Google, 2025
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenEach submission undergoes automated validation before human review.
“Each submission undergoes automated validation before human review:”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductcitationNormalized gain is defined following Hake's formulation.
“Following Hake's formulation from physics education research (Hake, 1998), we define normalized gain as:”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Hake, 1998
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenEach task is evaluated under three conditions: no Skills, curated Skills, and self-generated Skills.
“Each task is evaluated under three conditions: no Skills, curated Skills, and self-generated Skills.”
- Also stated in: § 3.3. Skills Conditions · plain
“We evaluate each task under three conditions:”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § 3.3. Skills Conditions · plain
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.
Study design and conductnone givenMaintainers conduct manual review evaluating five criteria: data validity, task realism, oracle quality, Skill quality, anti-cheating.
“maintainers conduct manual review evaluating five criteria: (1) data validity: input data must reflect real-world complexity; synthetic or toy data is rejected unless justified; (2) task realism: scenarios must reflect realistic professional workflows without artificial difficulty; (3) oracle quality: reference solutions should match how domain experts would solve the task; (4) Skill quality:”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenSkills are provided as system-level context preceding the task instruction.
“We provide Skills as system-level context preceding the task instruction in SKILLSBENCH.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningThe study mitigates nondeterminism and memorization with multiple runs, a leakage audit, and paired comparisons, but cannot eliminate all nondeterminism or memorization effects.
“We mitigate with multiple runs, a leakage audit ( §2.4), and paired (Skills vs. no Skills) comparisons, yet cannot eliminate all nondeterminism or memorization effects.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataOriginal task contributors provided human time estimates, reviewed by additional domain-expert reviewers.
“Original task contributors provided human time estimates, reviewed by an additional set of reviewers from the maintainers who are experts in the same domain.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataExcessive Skills content creates cognitive overhead or conflicting guidance.
“This non-monotonic relationship suggests that excessive Skills content creates cognitive overhead or conflicting guidance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataInstruction must be human written; human label achieved on 100% of tasks.
“Instruction must be human written (we apply both human review and GPTZero review, and we achieve human label on 100% of our tasks).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).
Study design and conductnone givenAll success criteria must be testable through programmatic assertions.
“All success criteria must be testable through programmatic assertions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningThe benchmark ensures strict isolation and deterministic verification.
“we ensure strict isolation and deterministic verification.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenThe verifier executes deterministic assertions to produce a binary pass/fail outcome.
“The verifier then executes deterministic assertions to produce a binary pass/fail outcome.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataConcise, stepwise guidance with at least one working example is often more effective than exhaustive documentation; overly long Skills definitions can increase context burden without improving decisions.
“Our analysis suggests that concise, stepwise guidance with at least one working example is often more effective than exhaustive documentation; overly long Skills definitions can increase context burden without improving decisions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenThe self-generated condition is evaluated on 5 of 7 configurations; Gemini CLI does not support this condition.
“The self-generated condition is evaluated on 5 of 7 configurations (all Claude Code models and Codex); Gemini CLI does not support this condition.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationExisting agent benchmarks evaluate raw model capabilities in isolation, answering how well a model performs task X but not how much Skills Y improve performance on task X.
“Existing agent benchmarks (Liu et al., 2023;Merrill et al., 2026;Jimenez et al., 2024;Zhou et al., 2024b;Xie et al., 2024;Koh et al., 2024;Trivedi et al., 2024;Yang et al., 2023;Chan et al., 2025;Zhuo et al., 2025) evaluate raw model capabilities in isolation, answering”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Liu et al., 2023
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Merrill et al., 2026
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- cites Jimenez et al., 2024
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
May combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataSkills may introduce conflicting guidance or unnecessary complexity for tasks models already handle well.
“These failures suggest Skills may introduce conflicting guidance or unnecessary complexity for tasks models already handle well.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenContainerization provides state isolation but not perfect determinism or immunity to training-set leakage.
“Containerization provides state isolation but not perfect determinism or immunity to training-set leakage.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe 84 evaluated tasks with high-quality Skills represent an optimistic scenario; real-world Skill usage involves lower-quality Skills (ecosystem mean 6.2/12 vs benchmark mean 10.1/12) and imperfect Skill-task matching.
“Our 84 evaluated tasks with high-quality Skills represent an optimistic scenario.Real-world Skill usage involves lower-quality Skills (ecosystem mean: 6.2/12 vs. benchmark mean: 10.1/12) and imperfect Skill-task matching.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningSkills reduce easy failures faster than hard ones; agents that previously produced low-quality output now spend longer pursuing better solutions, sometimes exceeding time limits.
“This is because Skills reduce easy failures faster than hard ones-agents that previously produced low-quality output now spend longer pursuing better solutions, sometimes exceeding time limits.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenA task passes if and only if all assertions in test_outputs.py succeed (reward = 1); partial credit is not awarded in the main evaluation.
“A task passes if and only if all assertions in test_outputs.pysucceed (reward = 1).Partial credit is not awarded in the main evaluation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenFor multimodal tasks (audio, PPTX, video, PDF), maintainers personally inspect agent output to verify correctness beyond programmatic assertions.
“For multimodal tasks (audio, PPTX, video, PDF), maintainers personally inspect agent output to verify correctness beyond programmatic assertions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Maintainers' personal inspection of multimodal outputs reliably verifies correctness beyond programmatic assertions.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataTable 9 enumerates all 86 tasks in SKILLSBENCH; two tasks are excluded from evaluation: mhc-layer-impl (requires GPU) and fix-visual-stability (verifier timeout), leaving 84 evaluated tasks.
“Table 9 enumerates all 86 tasks in SKILLSBENCH, organized by domain.Two tasks are excluded from evaluation: mhc-layer-impl (requires GPU) and fix-visual-stability (verifier timeout), leaving 84 evaluated tasks.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationClaude models have been trained with awareness of the Agent Skills specification, which may confer advantages when processing Skill-formatted instructions.
“Claude models have been trained with awareness of the Agent Skills specification (Anthropic, 2025a), which may confer advantages when processing Skill-formatted instructions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Anthropic, 2025a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenResults are averaged over 5 trials per task-model-condition combination.
“Results are averaged over 5 trials per task-model-condition combination.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Premiseown dataSkills uniquely combine modular packaging with procedural guidance and optional executable resources, while remaining portable across models and harnesses.
“Skills uniquely combine modular packaging with procedural guidance and optional executable resources, while remaining portable across models and harnesses.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataSkills help Gemini 3 Pro solve tasks more efficiently, with fewer exploration rounds.
“suggesting Skills help Pro solve tasks more efficiently, with fewer exploration rounds.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenAI-detection screening runs GPTZero on instruction.md to flag potential model-generated content.
“AI-detection screening: Runs GPTZero on instruction.mdto flag potential model-generated content.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: GPTZero and human review reliably detect model-generated content in instruction.md and task.toml.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationown dataSkills prioritize natural-language instructions over executable implementations.
“Markdown files dominate, indicating Skills prioritize natural-language instructions over executable implementations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataThe withskills-gemini-cli configuration had retry irregularities: 13 tasks had more than the expected 10 trials, and 64 launched jobs never completed.
“The withskills-gemini-cli configuration had retry irregularities: 13 tasks had more than the expected 10 trials (5 per model), and 64 launched jobs never completed (missing result.json).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningThe self-generated condition is evaluated on Claude Code (all four models) and Codex (GPT-5.2) only; Gemini CLI does not support this condition due to its explicit skill-activation interface.
“The self-generated condition is evaluated on Claude Code (all four models) and Codex (GPT-5.2) only; Gemini CLI does not support this condition due to its explicit skill-activation interface.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataThe evaluation comprises 7,308 valid trajectories across 7 configurations, 84 tasks, and 3 conditions.
“The evaluation comprises 7,308 valid trajectories across 7 configurations, 84 tasks, and 3 conditions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenMean pass rates are reported with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.
“We report mean pass rates with 95% bootstrap confidence intervals.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenOracle execution (harbor run -a oracle) runs the oracle solution end-to-end and requires 100% test pass rate.
“Oracle execution (harbor run -a oracle): Runs the oracle solution end-to-end and requires 100% test pass rate.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimThe quote only partly states this claim.
Interpretationown dataThese tasks exceed the computational budget regardless of model capability.
“suggesting these tasks exceed the computational budget regardless of model capability”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimThe quote only partly states this claim.
InterpretationreasoningClaude Code's native Skills integration explains why Claude Code + Opus 4.5 shows the largest improvement.
“reflecting Claude Code's native Skills integration”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataAgents spend additional time generating and then attempting to use self-authored Skills documents, which may contain errors or misleading guidance.
“suggesting that agents spend additional time generating and then attempting to use self-authored Skills documents, which may contain errors or misleading guidance.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone givenLLM-backed quality checks include automated verification of behavior consistency between instructions and tests, anticheating measures, pinned dependency checks, typo detection, and hardcoded solution detection.
“LLM-backed quality checks: Automated verification of behavior consistency between instructions and tests, anticheating measures, pinned dependency checks, typo detection, and hardcoded solution detection.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenThe 7 agent-model configurations tightly couple specific models with proprietary agent logic, representing real-world deployment conditions.
“These tightly couple specific models with proprietary agent logic, representing real-world deployment conditions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataGemini 3 Flash/Pro indicate faster but more error-prone execution.
“indicating faster but more error-prone execution.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataEight Gemini with-Skills trials that scored reward > 0 were overridden to reward = 0, reducing Flash by 0.7pp and Pro by 0.7pp.
“Eight Gemini with-Skills trials that scored reward > 0 were overridden to reward = 0, reducing Flash by 0.7pp and Pro by 0.7pp.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductnone given§ Copy skills to agent-specific locations COPY skills /root/.claude/skills# Claude Code COPY skills /root/.codex/skills# Codex CLI COPY skills /root/.gemini/skills# Gemini CLI COPY skills /root/.agents/skills# Portable agents Each agent harness discovers and loads Skills from its respective directory at runtime using its native skill scanning mechanism.Claude Code and Codex read the SKILL.mdfrontmatter (name and description) to determine relevance; Gemini CLI exposes an activate_skill tool that agents invoke explicitly.Instructions never reference which Skills to use-agents must discover and apply them autonomously.C.5.Skill Structure Each Skill is a directory containing a required SKILL.mdfile with YAML frontmatter and optional bundled resources: skill-name/ SKILL.md# Required: YAML frontmatter + instructions scripts/ # Optional: executable code references/ # Optional: reference documentationInstructions never reference which Skills to use; agents must discover and apply them autonomously.
“Instructions never reference which Skills to use-agents must discover and apply them autonomously.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe performance improvement (+16.2pp average) substantially outweighs the marginal cost increase ($0.03-0.22 per trial).
“but the performance improvement (+16.2ppaverage) substantially outweighs the marginal cost increase ($0.03-0.22 per trial).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataAgents typically understand the task structure and produce output, but their solutions are insufficiently accurate.
“The dominant failure mode is Quality Below Threshold (49.8%), indicating that agents typically understand the task structure and produce output, but their solutions are insufficiently accurate.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown datafix-visual-stability was excluded from all experiments due to consistent verifier failures across all configurations.
“fix-visual-stability was excluded from all experiments due to consistent verifier failures across all configurations.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataThe withskills-gemini-cli configuration recorded 0 AgentTimeoutErrors (vs. 13% expected based on other configurations), indicating timeout enforcement was disabled for these runs.
“The withskills-gemini-cli configuration recorded 0 AgentTimeoutErrors (vs.13% expected based on other configurations), indicating timeout enforcement was disabled for these runs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataFor a subset of configurations (GPT-5.2 and Claude Opus 4.5, all 26 Extreme tasks, no-Skills and with-Skills conditions), 10 runs instead of 5 showed mean ∆ within 1.2pp of 5-run estimates, standard error reduced by ∼30%, and all conclusions unchanged.
“For a subset of configurations (GPT-5.2and Claude Opus 4.5, all 26 Extreme tasks, no-Skills and with-Skills conditions), we conducted 10 runs instead of 5. Results show: • Mean ∆ within 1.2pp of 5-run estimates • Standard error reduced by ∼30% • All conclusions remain unchanged”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Interpretationnone givenComplex multi-step pipeline tasks (6 tasks: gh-repo-analytics, pedestrian-traffic-counting, enterprise-information-search, setup-fuzzing-py, reserves-at-risk-calc, shock-analysis-supply) require chaining multiple tools, APIs, or data sources where failure at any stage prevents downstream progress.
“Complex multi-step pipelines (6 tasks): gh-repo-analytics, pedestrian-traffic-counting, enterprise-information-search, setup-fuzzing-py, reserves-at-risk-calc, shock-analysis-supply.These require chaining multiple tools, APIs, or data sources where failure at any stage prevents downstream progress.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenDifficulty levels are assigned by task authors and validated during review.
“Difficulty levels are assigned by task authors and validated during review.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductcitationScores are computed using Method D (task-mean with fixed denominator of 84 evaluated tasks), consistent with Terminal-Bench scoring methodology.
“Scores are computed using Method D (task-mean with fixed denominator of 84 evaluated tasks), consistent with Terminal-Bench (Merrill et al., 2026) scoring methodology.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Merrill et al., 2026 source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataInfrastructure errors occurred across 7,414 total trials and were treated as reward = 0 in scoring.
“Infrastructure errors across 7,414 total trials (including excluded tasks).These errors are treated as reward = 0 in scoring.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Interpretationnone givenComputationally intractable tasks (6 tasks: gravitational-wave-detection, quantum-numerical-simulation, seismic-phase-picking, shock-analysis-demand, speaker-diarization-subtitles, taxonomy-tree-merge) require either domain-specific signal processing pipelines, large-scale numerical optimization, or computationally expensive algorithms that exceed the agent's time budget.
“Computationally intractable (6 tasks): gravitational-wave-detection, quantum-numerical-simulation, seismic-phase-picking, shock-analysis-demand, speaker-diarization-subtitles, taxonomy-tree-merge.These tasks require either domainspecific signal processing pipelines, large-scale numerical optimization, or computationally expensive algorithms that exceed the agent's time budget.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationnone givenStrict specification tasks (4 tasks: latex-formula-extraction, pddl-tpp-planning, react-performance-debugging, xlsx-recover-data) have narrow success criteria where even small deviations from the expected output format or values cause all tests to fail.
“Strict specification tasks (4 tasks): latex-formula-extraction, pddl-tpp-planning, react-performance-debugging, xlsx-recover-data.These have narrow success criteria where even small deviations from the expected output format or values cause all tests to fail.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
Foundation models lack the procedural knowledge required for domain-specific workflows.
“foundation models provide broad capabilities but lack the procedural knowledge required for domain-specific workflows”
The paper relies on this without support.
Fine-tuning is expensive and sacrifices generality.
“while fine-tuning is expensive and sacrifices generality.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Skills ecosystems have grown rapidly, with community repositories hosting thousands of user-contributed Skills.
“Skills ecosystems have grown rapidly, with community repositories now hosting thousands of user-contributed Skills spanning software engineering, data analysis, and enterprise workflows.”
The paper relies on this without support.
LLM-generated queries are confined by the distributions of LLMs and are most of the time of low quality.
“We enforce this because LLMs generated queries will be confined by the distributions of LLMs, which are the subject of our evaluations, and LLM-generated queries are most of the time of low quality.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The self-generated condition isolates the impact of LLMs' latent domain knowledge.
“This isolates the impact of LLMs' latent domain knowledge.”
The paper relies on this without support.
GPTZero and human review reliably detect model-generated content in instruction.md and task.toml.
“Verify instruction.mdand task.toml are manually written using GPTZero and human review.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Maintainers' personal inspection of multimodal outputs reliably verifies correctness beyond programmatic assertions.
“For multimodal tasks (audio, PPTX, video, PDF), maintainers personally inspect agent output to verify correctness beyond programmatic assertions.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Log-Pearson Type III distribution is the standard USGS methodology for flood frequency analysis.
“The curated Skill specified the Log-Pearson Type III distribution, the standard USGS methodology for flood frequency analysis”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Two different average gains are reported for curated Skills
MajorThe pipeline figure reports a +12.66pp average improvement, while the main results report +16.2pp for curated Skills. Both are presented as the benchmark-wide improvement.
“7 agent-model configurations yield 7,308 trajectories, with curated Skills providing +12.66pp average improvement.”
“Skills improve performance by +16.2pp on average across 7 model-harness configurations”
SEC-report task improvement differs between results sections
MinorThe task-level narrative gives sec-financial-report a +74.3pp improvement, whereas Table 18 gives it +75.0pp, from 0.0% to 75.0%.
“sec-financi al-report (+74.3pp)”
“| sec-financial-report | 0.0% | 75.0% | +75.0pp |”
Official-API cost comparison uses different prices
MinorThe cost-efficiency section reports Flash and Pro costs of $0.57 and $1.06 per task at standard API pricing. Figure 4's description instead attributes $0.55 and $0.98 to official API pricing for the same comparison.
“At standard API pricing, Flash's 4× lower per-token cost more than offsets higher token volume, making Flash 47% cheaper per task ($0.57vs. $1.06).”
“At official API pricing ($0.50 vs. $2.00 per 1M input tokens), Flash's 4× lower per-token cost more than offsets this higher volume, making Flash 44% cheaper per task ($0.55 vs. $0.98).”
Contributor and candidate-task counts are reversed
MinorThe dataset-construction section says 105 contributors submitted 322 candidate tasks, but the pipeline caption reverses those counts.
“105 contributors from both academia and industry submitted 322 candidate tasks.”
“In parallel, 322 contributors submit 105 candidate tasks.”
Cites
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Large language models (LLMs) have evolved from text generators into autonomous agents capable of executing complex, multi-step tasks in real-world environments (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2023; Touvron et al., 2023; Ouyang et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2022).”
Hake, R. R. (1998) · American Journal of Physics · doi:10.1119/1.18809 · Cited by 6,072 · cited 3× · see citing works
“Finally, broader benchmarking motivates careful reporting and comparability (Mattson et al., 2020; Chiang et al., 2024; Srivastava et al., 2023); we report both absolute gains and normalized gain (Hake, 1998) to compare improvements across different baselines (§3.5).”
InfluentialLLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models
Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozière, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13971 · Cited by 4,602 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Large language models (LLMs) have evolved from text generators into autonomous agents capable of executing complex, multi-step tasks in real-world environments (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2023; Touvron et al., 2023; Ouyang et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2022).”
Chain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…or external knowledge, e.g., CoALA and Voyager (Sumers et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023a), chain-of-thought and ReAct for multi-step problem solving (Wei et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2023; 2022; Shinn et al., 2023; Madaan et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023; 2024a), and retrieval/tool use (Lewis et al.,…”
Between MDPs and semi-MDPs: A framework for temporal abstraction in reinforcement learning
Sutton, R. S., Precup, D., & Singh, S. (1999) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/s0004-3702(99)00052-1 · Cited by 3,119 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This modular approach builds on the options framework for temporal abstraction (Sutton et al., 1999) and cognitive architectures for language agents (Sumers et al., 2023), mirroring successful computing paradigms: foundation models provide base capabilities (analogous to CPUs), agent harnesses…”
Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-2011 · Cited by 3,117 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Large language models (LLMs) have evolved from text generators into autonomous agents capable of executing complex, multi-step tasks in real-world environments (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2023; Touvron et al., 2023; Ouyang et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2022).”
Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks
Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W.-T., Rocktäschel, T., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.11401 · Cited by 3,101 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…excludes : system prompts (lack structure and resources), few-shot examples (Brown et al., 2020) (declarative, not procedural), RAG retrievals (Lewis et al., 2020) (factual, not procedural), and tool documentation (Schick et al., 2023; Qin et al., 2024) (describes capabilities, not…”
PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Large language models (LLMs) have evolved from text generators into autonomous agents capable of executing complex, multi-step tasks in real-world environments (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2023; Touvron et al., 2023; Ouyang et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2022).”
Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models
Yao, S., Yu, D., Zhao, J., Shafran, I., Griffiths, T. L., Cao, Y., & Narasimhan, K. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.10601 · Cited by 1,158 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Tests must include informative error messages and use parametrization rather than duplication.”
Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools
Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dessì, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Zettlemoyer, L., Cancedda, N., & Scialom, T. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.04761 · Cited by 1,150 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…problem solving (Wei et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2023; 2022; Shinn et al., 2023; Madaan et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023; 2024a), and retrieval/tool use (Lewis et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2022; Schick et al., 2023; Qin et al., 2024), and declarative optimization frameworks (Khattab et al., 2023).”
Toolformer: language models can teach themselves to use tools
Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dessi, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Hambro, E., Zettlemoyer, L., Cancedda, N., & Scialom, T. (2023) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-2997 · Cited by 1,150 · see citing works
Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning
Shinn, N., Cassano, F., Berman, E., Gopinath, A., Narasimhan, K., & Yao, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.11366 · Cited by 1,087 · see citing works
Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback
Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., et al. (2023) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 · doi:10.52202/075280-2019 · Cited by 755 · see citing works
ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models
Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K., & Cao, Y. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.03629 · Cited by 608 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Large language models (LLMs) have evolved from text generators into autonomous agents capable of executing complex, multi-step tasks in real-world environments (Brown et al., 2020; Chowdhery et al., 2023; Touvron et al., 2023; Ouyang et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2022).”
Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models
Srivastava, A., Rastogi, A., Rao, A., Shoeb, A. A. M., Abid, A., Fisch, A., Brown, A. R., Santoro, A., Gupta, A., Garriga-Alonso, A., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.04615 · Cited by 569 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Finally, broader benchmarking motivates careful reporting and comparability (Mattson et al., 2020; Chiang et al., 2024; Srivastava et al., 2023); we report both absolute gains and normalized gain (Hake, 1998) to compare improvements across different baselines (§3.5).”
InfluentialSelf-citationProgram Synthesis with Large Language Models
Austin, J., Odena, A., Nye, M., Bosma, M., Michalewski, H., Dohan, D., Jiang, E., Cai, C., Terry, M., Le, Q., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2108.07732 · Cited by 388 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Other suites emphasize tool-mediated workflows, interactive execution feedback, or domain specialization (Yao et al., 2025; Trivedi et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2023; Chan et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2024; Zhuo et al., 2025; Austin et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2025).”
Least-to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models
Zhou, D., Schärli, N., Hou, L., Wei, J., Scales, N., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Cui, C., Bousquet, O., Le, Q., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.10625 · Cited by 380 · see citing works
Pasquini, L., Cristiani, S., López, R. G. G., et al. (1961) · Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation · doi:10.1117/12.856974 · Cited by 356 · cited 1×
“An-thropic’s Agent Skills and MCP specifications (Anthropic, 2025a; 2024) formalized skill packages and tool connectivity, while agent CLIs (Claude Code, Gemini CLI, and Codex) provide real-world harnesses (Anthropic, 2025b; Google, 2025; OpenAI, 2025).”
SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering
Yang, J., Jimenez, C., Wettig, A., Lieret, K., Yao, S., Narasimhan, K., & Press, O. (2024) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 · doi:10.52202/079017-1601 · Cited by 264 · see citing works
Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models
Wang, G., Xie, Y., Jiang, Y., Mandlekar, A., Xiao, C., Zhu, Y., Fan, L., & Anandkumar, A. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.16291 · Cited by 222 · cited 1× · see citing works
“We target minimal number of tests needed for verification, avoiding both insufficient coverage and redundant test bloat that leads to artifical low pass rates.”
Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback
Madaan, A., Tandon, N., Gupta, P., Hallinan, S., Gao, L., Wiegreffe, S., Alon, U., Dziri, N., Prabhumoye, S., Yang, Y., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.17651 · Cited by 219 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…2023; Wang et al., 2023a), chain-of-thought and ReAct for multi-step problem solving (Wei et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2023; 2022; Shinn et al., 2023; Madaan et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023; 2024a), and retrieval/tool use (Lewis et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2022; Schick et al., 2023; Qin et al.,…”
Mattson, P., Cheng, C., Coleman, C., Diamos, G., Micikevicius, P., Patterson, D., Tang, H., Wei, G.-Y., Bailis, P., Bittorf, V., et al. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.01500 · Cited by 206 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Finally, broader benchmarking motivates careful reporting and comparability (Mattson et al., 2020; Chiang et al., 2024; Srivastava et al., 2023); we report both absolute gains and normalized gain (Hake, 1998) to compare improvements across different baselines (§3.5).”
InfluentialChatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference
Chiang, W.-L., Zheng, L., Sheng, Y., Angelopoulos, A. N., Li, T., Li, D., Zhang, H., Zhu, B., Jordan, M., Gonzalez, J. E., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.04132 · Cited by 118 · cited 1×
“Each submission undergoes automated validation before human review:”
AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents
Liu, X., Yu, H., Zhang, H., Xu, Y., Lei, X., Lai, H., Gu, Y., Ding, H., Men, K., Yang, K., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.03688 · Cited by 79 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Existing agent benchmarks (Liu et al., 2023; Merrill et al., 2026; Jimenez et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2024b; Xie et al., 2024; Koh et al., 2024; Trivedi et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2023; Chan et al., 2025; Zhuo et al., 2025) evaluate raw model capabilities in isolation, answering “How well can this…”
Self-citationCognitive Architectures for Language Agents
Sumers, T. R., Yao, S., Narasimhan, K., & Griffiths, T. L. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.02427 · Cited by 72 · cited 4× · see citing works
“…e.g., CoALA and Voyager (Sumers et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023a), chain-of-thought and ReAct for multi-step problem solving (Wei et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2023; 2022; Shinn et al., 2023; Madaan et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023; 2024a), and retrieval/tool use (Lewis et al., 2020; Zhou et al.,…”
InfluentialSWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?
Jimenez, C. E., Yang, J., Wettig, A., Yao, S., Pei, K., Press, O., & Narasimhan, K. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.06770 · Cited by 72 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Existing agent benchmarks (Liu et al., 2023; Merrill et al., 2026; Jimenez et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2024b; Xie et al., 2024; Koh et al., 2024; Trivedi et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2023; Chan et al., 2025; Zhuo et al., 2025) evaluate raw model capabilities in isolation, answering “How well can this…”
Qin, Y., Liang, S., Ye, Y., Zhu, K., Yan, L., Lu, Y., Lin, Y., Cong, X., Tang, X., Qian, B., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.16789 · Cited by 71 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…problem solving (Wei et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2023; 2022; Shinn et al., 2023; Madaan et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023; 2024a), and retrieval/tool use (Lewis et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2022; Schick et al., 2023; Qin et al., 2024), and declarative optimization frameworks (Khattab et al., 2023).”
Self-citationOSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments
Xie, T., Zhang, D., Chen, J., Li, X., Zhao, S., Cao, R., Hua, T. J., Cheng, Z., Shin, D., Lei, F., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.07972 · Cited by 64 · cited 2× · see citing works
“At official API pricing ($0.50 vs. $2.00 per 1M input tokens), Flash’s 4 × lower per-token cost more than offsets this higher volume, making Flash 44% cheaper per task ($0.55 vs. $0.98). to 88.6%), sales-pivot-analysis (+85.7pp), flood-risk-analysis (+77.1pp), sec-financi al-report (+74.3pp).”
InfluentialSelf-citation(2024) · doi:10.52202/079017-1650 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
DSPy: Compiling Declarative Language Model Calls into Self-Improving Pipelines
Khattab, O., Singhvi, A., Maheshwari, P., Zhang, Z., Santhanam, K., Vardhamanan, S., Haq, S., Sharma, A., Joshi, T. T., Moazam, H., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.03714 · Cited by 60 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…problem solving (Wei et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2023; 2022; Shinn et al., 2023; Madaan et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023; 2024a), and retrieval/tool use (Lewis et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2022; Schick et al., 2023; Qin et al., 2024), and declarative optimization frameworks (Khattab et al., 2023).”
VisualWebArena: evaluating multimodal agents on realistic visual web tasks
Koh, J. Y., Lo, R., Jang, L., Duvvur, V., Lim, M., Huang, P.-Y., Neubig, G., Zhou, S., Salakhutdinov, R., & Fried, D. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.50 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
DocPrompting: Generating Code by Retrieving the Docs
Zhou, S., Alon, U., Xu, F. F., Wang, Z., Jiang, Z., & Neubig, G. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2207.05987 · Cited by 33 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…problem solving (Wei et al., 2022; Yao et al., 2023; 2022; Shinn et al., 2023; Madaan et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2023; 2024a), and retrieval/tool use (Lewis et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2022; Schick et al., 2023; Qin et al., 2024), and declarative optimization frameworks (Khattab et al., 2023).”
WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents
Zhou, S., Xu, F. F., Zhu, H., Zhou, X., Lo, R., Sridhar, A., Cheng, X., Ou, T., Bisk, Y., Fried, D., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.13854 · Cited by 31 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Existing agent benchmarks (Liu et al., 2023; Merrill et al., 2026; Jimenez et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2024b; Xie et al., 2024; Koh et al., 2024; Trivedi et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2023; Chan et al., 2025; Zhuo et al., 2025) evaluate raw model capabilities in isolation, answering “How well can this…”
SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering
Yang, J., Jimenez, C. E., Wettig, A., Lieret, K., Yao, S., Narasimhan, K., & Press, O. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.15793 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions
Zhuo, T. Y., Vu, M. C., Chim, J., Hu, H., Yu, W., Widyasari, R., Yusuf, I. N. B., Zhan, H., He, J., Paul, I., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.15877 · Cited by 29 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Other suites emphasize tool-mediated workflows, interactive execution feedback, or domain specialization (Yao et al., 2025; Trivedi et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2023; Chan et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2024; Zhuo et al., 2025; Austin et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2025).”
Self-citationInterCode: Standardizing and Benchmarking Interactive Coding with Execution Feedback
Yang, J., Prabhakar, A., Narasimhan, K., & Yao, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.14898 · Cited by 26 · cited 1×
“In-structions must not reference which Skills to use, meaning agents must discover and apply Skills autonomously.”
(2023) · doi:10.52202/075280-1035 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Execution-Based Evaluation for Open-Domain Code Generation
Wang, Z., Zhou, S., Fried, D., & Neubig, G. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2212.10481 · Cited by 20 · cited 2× · see citing works
“This ensures reproducible pass/fail determination without LLM-as-a-judge variance, following execution-based evaluation best practices (Wang et al., 2023b; Brown, 2025).”
Language Agent Tree Search Unifies Reasoning Acting and Planning in Language Models
Zhou, A., Yan, K., Shlapentokh-Rothman, M., Wang, H., & Wang, Y.-X. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.04406 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Self-citationAppWorld: A Controllable World of Apps and People for Benchmarking Interactive Coding Agents
Trivedi, H., Khot, T., Hartmann, M., Manku, R., Dong, V., Li, E., Gupta, S., Sabharwal, A., & Balasubramanian, N. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.850 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
$τ$-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains
Yao, S., Shinn, N., Razavi, P., & Narasimhan, K. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.12045 · Cited by 9 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Other suites emphasize tool-mediated workflows, interactive execution feedback, or domain specialization (Yao et al., 2025; Trivedi et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2023; Chan et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2024; Zhuo et al., 2025; Austin et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2025).”
MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineering
Chan, J. S., Chowdhury, N., Jaffe, O., Aung, J., Sherburn, D., Mays, E., Starace, G., Liu, K., Maksin, L., Patwardhan, T., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.07095 · Cited by 7 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Other suites emphasize tool-mediated workflows, interactive execution feedback, or domain specialization (Yao et al., 2025; Trivedi et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2023; Chan et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2024; Zhuo et al., 2025; Austin et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2025).”
SWE-smith: Scaling Data for Software Engineering Agents
Yang, J., Lieret, K., Jimenez, C. E., Wettig, A., Khandpur, K., Zhang, Y., Hui, B., Press, O., Schmidt, L., & Yang, D. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.21798 · Cited by 6
Self-citationCybench: A Framework for Evaluating Cybersecurity Capabilities and Risks of Language ModelsPreprint
Zhang, A. K., Perry, N., Dulepet, R., et al. (2024) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.08926 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
AppWorld: A Controllable World of Apps and People for Benchmarking Interactive Coding Agents
Trivedi, H., Khot, T., Hartmann, M., Manku, R., Dong, V., Li, E., Gupta, S., Sabharwal, A., & Balasubramanian, N. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.18901 · Cited by 2 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Other suites emphasize tool-mediated workflows, interactive execution feedback, or domain specialization (Yao et al., 2025; Trivedi et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2023; Chan et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2024; Zhuo et al., 2025; Austin et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2025).”
Establishing Best Practices for Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarks
Zhu, Y., Jin, T., Pruksachatkun, Y., Zhang, A., Liu, S., Cui, S., Kapoor, S., Longpre, S., Meng, K., Weiss, R., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.02825 · Cited by 2 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Operating Systems”
VisualWebArena: Evaluating Multimodal Agents on Realistic Visual Web Tasks
Koh, J. Y., Lo, R., Jang, L., Duvvur, V., Lim, M. C., Huang, P.-Y., Neubig, G., Zhou, S., Salakhutdinov, R., & Fried, D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.13649 · Cited by 1 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Existing agent benchmarks (Liu et al., 2023; Merrill et al., 2026; Jimenez et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2024b; Xie et al., 2024; Koh et al., 2024; Trivedi et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2023; Chan et al., 2025; Zhuo et al., 2025) evaluate raw model capabilities in isolation, answering “How well can this…”
ReplicationBench: Can AI Agents Replicate Astrophysics Research Papers?Preprint
Ye, C., Yuan, S., Cooray, S., Dillmann, S., Roque, I. L. V., Baron, D., Frank, P., Martin-Alvarez, S., Koblischke, N. W., Qu, F. J., et al. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.24591 · Cited by 1 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Other suites emphasize tool-mediated workflows, interactive execution feedback, or domain specialization (Yao et al., 2025; Trivedi et al., 2024; Yang et al., 2023; Chan et al., 2025; Zhang et al., 2024; Zhuo et al., 2025; Austin et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2025).”
Self-citationTerminal-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks in Command Line Interfaces
Merrill, M. A., Shaw, A. G., Carlini, N., Li, B., Raj, H., Bercovich, I., Shi, L., Shin, J. Y., Walshe, T., Buchanan, E. K., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.11868 · cited 6×
“The primary metric is pass rate, following the scoring methodology of Terminal-Bench (Merrill et al., 2026): for each task, we average the binary reward across 5 trials, then average these task-level scores using a fixed denominator of 84 (the number of evaluated tasks).”
InfluentialSelf-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
7 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Pan, M. Z., Cemri, M., Agrawal, L. A., Yang, S., Chopra, B., Tiwari, R., Keutzer, K., Parameswaran, A., Ramchandran, K., Klein, D., et al. Why do multiagent systems fail? In ICLR 2025 Workshop on Building Trust in Language Models and Applications, 2025.
- Qin, Y., Liang, S., Ye, Y., Zhu, K., Yan, L., Lu, Y., Lin, Y., Cong, X., Tang, X., Qian, B., Zhao, S., Hong, L., Tian, R., Xie, R., Zhou, J., Gerstein, M., li, d., Liu, Z., and Sun, M. ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs. In ICLR, 2024.
- Zhu, Y., Jin, T., Pruksachatkun, Y., Zhang, A. K., Liu, S., Cui, S., Kapoor, S., Longpre, S., Meng, K., Weiss, R., Barez, F., Gupta, R., Dhamala, J., Merizian, J., Giu- lianelli, M., Coppock, H., Ududec, C., Kellermann, A., Sekhon, J. S., Steinhardt, J., Schwettmann, S., Narayanan, A., Zaharia, M., Stoica, I., Liang, P., and Kang, D. Es- tablishing Best Practices in Building Rigorous Agentic Benchmarks. In NeurIPS, 2025.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Externalization in LLM Agents: A Unified Review of Memory, Skills, Protocols and Harness Engineering
Zhou, C., Chai, H., Chen, W., Guo, Z., Shan, R., Song, Y., Xu, T., Yang, Y., Yu, A., Zhang, W., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.08224 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationSkillOpt: Executive Strategy for Self-Evolving Agent Skills
Yang, Y., Gong, Z., Huang, W., Yang, Q., Zhou, Z., Huang, Z., Li, Y., Gao, X., Dai, Q., Liu, B., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.23904 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Self-citationExperience Compression Spectrum: Unifying Memory, Skills, and Rules in LLM Agents
Zhang, X., Wang, G., Cui, Y., Qiu, W., Li, Z., Zhu, B., & He, P. (2026) · arXiv
“SkillsBench (Li et al., 2026b) further finds that curated skills help ( +16 .”
WikiSkill: Compiling Agent Experience into Persistent Knowledge for Skill Evolution
Tang, L., Rashtchian, C., Ferng, C.-S., Tomkins, A., Juan, D.-C., & Vu, T. (2026) · arXiv · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Agent skills (Chen et al., 2026a; Li et al., 2026; Liu et al., 2026; Zhang et al., 2025) provide a lightweight, open format for capturing such expertise without updating model parameters.”
MetaSkill-Evolve: Recursive Self-Improvement of LLM Agents via Two-Timescale Meta-Skill Evolution
Wang, Z., Yan, M., Bi, J., Yan, S., Tresp, V., & Ma, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.05297
“A skill is a reusable, named procedure that augments a frozen LLM agent and is now a portable artifact across agent harnesses (Wang et al., 2023; Zheng et al., 2025; Opsahl-Ong et al., 2026; Li et al., 2026; Jiang et al., 2026; Zhao et al., 2026).”
Decomposing LLM-Based Testing with Agent Skills: A Case Study on Numerical Inconsistencies
Wang, Y., & Rubio-González, C. (2026) · doi:10.1145/3842650.3843176
Self-citationA Survey of Agent Memory in the Second Half: Towards Self-Evolving and Long-Horizon Agents
Huang, W.-C., Zhang, W., Liang, Y., Bei, Y., Chen, Y., Feng, T., Pan, X., Tan, Z., Wang, Y., Wei, T., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.06052
Self-citationRaven: The Harness of Harnesses for Composable Agentic Intelligence
AI, E. (2026) · arXiv
RSIGym: A Flexible Environment for Recursive Self-Improvement
Meng, F., Du, L., Lu, H., Chen, Q., Zhao, Z., Wu, Z., Zhuo, J., Hu, M., & Shieh, M. Q. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.10310
“We then study a Data run Opus 5, $500, from Qwen3.”
Managing Procedural Memory in LLM Agents: Control, Adaptation, and Evaluation
Belikova, J., Parchiev, R., Egorov, E., Davydenko, G., Gusev, G., Savchenko, A., & Makarenko, M. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.23127
- Authors
- Li, X., Liu, Y., Chen, W., You, B., Di, Z., He, Y., Zheng, S., Choe, K. W., Sun, J., Wang, S., Tao, C., Li, B., Zhao, X., Geng, H., Wu, X., Zhou, J., Chen, X., Xing, H., Li, Y., Zeng, Q., Wang, D., Wang, Y., Chaim, R. B., Jiang, P., Shen, H., Kong, L., Liu, X., Wang, R., Liu, X., Li, J., Lan, X., Lin, Y., Ye, W., He, J., Li, S., Zhang, Y., Gao, Y., Li, Y., Ma, Z., Jing, L., Wang, T., Li, K., Xue, Y., Lyu, H., He, Y., Tian, Y., Wu, S., Wang, B., Gao, Y., Chen, B., Liu, L., Cheng, S., Bao, J., Tong, S., Xu, S., Zhuo, T. Y., Ye, T., Qi, Q., Li, M., Liao, L., Tan, Z., Shi, C., Tang, X., Tankasala, S., Yuan, B., Qian, Y., Tu, J., Wang, C., Sun, Y., Wang, W., Taylor, A., Yang, Z., Guan, C., Dong, Z., Zhang, X., Dillmann, S., Lee, H.-C., & Song, D.
- Affiliations
- Boston University (US)
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Amazon (United States) (US)
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Dartmouth College (US)
- Princeton University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- Duke University (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2602.12670
- OpenAlex
- W7129079999
- Semantic Scholar
- 1f09ae8491805852a18c386104ee2539d43e29d9
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- agent skills, LLM agents, benchmarking, model size
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-11.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-11.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review